FCC Commissioner Warns Fairness Doctrine Might Involve Control of Web

[American Patriot]

FCC Commissioner Warns Fairness Doctrine Might Involve Control of Web
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-po...ve-control-web ^

If the idea of the Fairness Doctrine bringing government control of broadcasted speech wasn't bad enough, there's also a possibility that its oversight powers could spill over onto the Internet and control Web content.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

[eversman]

It wont happen. too many people dont want to hear the other side of the argument. i dont. ive heard it all before anyway....

this has some support, but when people really look at what it is, itll fall on its face.


ev

[Ryan Ruck]

They try and push this stuff on US based webservers, you will see a surge in popularity of foreign webservers where the FCC has no jurisdiction. Such has been the case with file sharing and their hosting servers being located outside of the US where the FBI and US copyright law hold no weight. All that unless, of course, a nation partners with the US and forms similar laws.

[wallis]

I thought this controlling the Internet was already brought up in the news and died a quick death. I believe that the U.S. trying to "censor" the world wide web was futile, even if a great number of routes go through the U.S.

I think trying to block any Internet data would be akin to catching a rod. (And they don't exist, if I have understood my Discovery / Nat Geo programs.

[Brian Baldwin]

Glad to see you back Wallis. Maybe you can add some spice to the discussions here.

[Brian Baldwin]

This doctrine was supposed to tell Comcast that they can't make an invisible cutoff line of service without telling the paying customer what it is. I would have thought that already covered by law somewhere but I guess it's not. The idea that it should be used to regulate what speech is shown on DailyKOS or FreeRepublic instead is just repulsive and I'm going to be watching this "doctrine" very closely.

As for "content"... One man's fairness.... Are we to become whining non-thinkers like the Canadians, and start calling everything Hate Crimes next? We AMERICANS decide what's fair and show it by tuning out of journalistic programs that don't show fairness, or turning the dial on our radios, or even cease our subscriptions. I don't agree with any kind of censorship. And I think this doctrine is very dangerously bordering on that even now. Were Comcast to show favortism by blocking all but the Far Left or Far Right views they'd quickly see their subscription base drop to those of the New York Times with the difference being the overhead Cable Internet companies have. Almost overnight Bankruptcy in other words.

[vector7]

DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT

By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

Last updated: 8:49 am
October 20, 2008
Posted: 4:51 am
October 20, 2008

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008...ght_134399.htm

[vector7]

The International War on Free Speech

By Brett Joshpe on 11.6.08 @ 6:05AM

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and a documentary film producer; not exactly the person one would expect to find on the front line in the battle against both radical Islam and the Islamist assault on free speech. Yet, that is where the 45 year-old founder of the Party for Freedom stands. Wilders, by posting the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad on his website and producing a short film titled Fitna, has stirred international controversy that has prompted boycotts of Dutch products, condemnation by the UN Secretary General, constant death threats, and civil and criminal prosecution. Americans, especially politicians on the Left, should take notice.

Fitna features graphic images of terrorist attacks and quotes radical Imams and Koranic Suras used to justify terrorism. In response to the film, Wilders' own government, at the behest of an angry Muslim population, investigated whether he violated any "hate speech" laws but ultimately declined to prosecute him. However, the Jordanian government is prosecuting Wilders, along with 12 other Europeans, for blasphemy against Islam and requesting that Wilders be extradited to Jordan to stand trial. If convicted in Jordan, Wilders could be sentenced to death.

Of course, the experience of Geert Wilders and those like him, says much about radical Islam and the threats it poses to free societies. However, it says something, perhaps nearly as frightening, about what Western societies are doing to themselves. Natan Sharansky, who spent years in the Soviet gulags and knows something about freedom, defined a free society in The Case for Democracy as one in which "people have a right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm." By that definition, democracies all across the world are in jeopardy.

In much of Western Europe, where multiculturalism seems to be the official language, "hate speech" laws suppress candid discourse. Liability potentially awaits anyone whose views offend others. The Council of Europe's website even states that "In multicultural societies it is often necessary to reconcile freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In some instances, it may also be necessary to place restrictions on these freedoms."

People who are offended by what a critic or commentator writes about them have started suing in countries with restrictive speech laws, in a means of forum shopping known as "libel tourism." Deterred from pursuing libel cases in countries like the United States where legal standards are higher and free speech protections greater, these plaintiffs force authors to incur the expense of mounting a legal response or risk defaulting in a foreign jurisdiction.

There are also disturbing signs that free speech in America will become less protected and more regulated in the near future, especially with the reality of large Democratic majorities in Congress and a Barack Obama presidency looming. The most publicized example is reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, which requires broadcasters to devote equal time to both sides of controversial issues. Paternalism aside, the Doctrine would cause an explosion of regulation and litigation and would effectively be used to destroy conservative talk radio and possibly FOX News. Members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have also suggested imposing "neutrality" requirements on the Internet, which could lead to content regulation of websites, including blogs.

The left no longer seems bashful about regulating free speech for political gain, and when I asked Wilders whether the prospect of a Democratic government could have profound implications for free speech rights in America, he coyly stated, "I know who I would vote for and it wouldn't start with an 'O.'" In fact, Barack Obama's campaign, which raised and spent more money than any presidential campaign in history, has wielded the threats of libel suits and government investigations as a sword to quiet critics.

As the late Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, hardly a conservative, once said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." The way best to ensure such sunlight is to protect free speech, even the hateful, offensive kind, because ultimately, the free marketplace of ideas is the best regulator of all.

When Geert Wilders recently spoke at a lunch in New York hosted by the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech rights, he said that "America is the last man standing." It was not quite clear whether he was referring to our willingness to combat radical Islam or to guard against the encroachment of free speech rights. It turns out that true freedom requires commitment to both.

http://www.spectator.org/archives/20...al-war-on-free